Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Rendra Ren
Claim Number: FA1004001319871
Complainant is Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Renee
M. Reuter of Enterprise Holdings, Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <enterpriserentalcars.org>, registered with Melbourne IT Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically April 19, 2010.
On April 19, 2010, Melbourne IT Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne IT Ltd verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne IT Ltd registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On April 22, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 12, 2010, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@enterpriserentalcars.org. Also on April 22, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 19, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of a Written Notice, as defined in Rule 1. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The
domain name that Respondent registered, <enterpriserentalcars.org>, is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Enterprise
Holdings, Inc., has rights in its
Respondent, Rendra Ren, registered the <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain name January 5, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to a website with hyperlinks that are either inoperable or that direct Internet users to Complainant’s competitors.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Given Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant asserts that it has
rights in its
Complainant urges that Respondent’s <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain
name is confusingly similar to its
The Panel finds that Respondent’s <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must establish a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant supports its allegations by making a prima facie case to that effect, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. The Panel finds that Complainant made a prima facie case, shifting the burden to the Respondent pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Due to Respondent’s lack of an affirmative response to these proceedings, the Panel may proceed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Complainant. This Panel, however, still reviews the evidence before making any such findings to determine if the proof before the Panel tends to suggest that Respondent does have such rights and legitimate interests under the Policy ¶ 4(c) guidelines. See Domtar, Inc. v. Theriault., FA 1089426 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2008) (“It is well established that, once a complainant has made out a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence).
The WHOIS information for the <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain name lists “Rendra Ren” as the registrant, indicates that the
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain. Respondent has not
provided any other evidence to support that it is commonly known by the
disputed domain name, and Complainant asserts that it has not given any
authorization or rights to Respondent to use its
Complainant further alleges that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Complainant alleges that Respondent’s <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain name resolves to a website with hyperlinks that are either inoperable or that direct Internet users to Complainant’s competitors. The Panel finds that such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and that it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Skyhawke Techs., LLC v. Tidewinds Group, Inc., FA 949608 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2007) (“Respondent is using the <skycaddy.com> domain name to display a list of hyperlinks, some of which advertise Complainant and its competitors’ products. The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of the <24hrsfitness.com>, <24-hourfitness.com> and <24hoursfitness.com> domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring advertisements and links to Complainant’s competitors could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant also alleges that Respondent registered and used
the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s
disputed domain name lists hyperinks that include Complainant’s competitors.
The Panel finds that listing Complainant’s competitors on a website resolving
from a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark is evidence
of and supports findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See David
Hall Rare Coins v.
Complainant also alleges that Respondent uses the <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain
name to present a website with hyperlinks that are either inoperable or that
direct Internet users to Complainant’s competitors. Complainant argues that
Internet users, seeking Complainant’s services, may become confused by
Respondent’s disputed domain name and resolving website. Complainant alleges
that Respondent capitalizes on this confusion by collecting click-through fees,
thus using the disputed domain name for commercial gain and is evidence of bad
faith registration and use. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name is for Respondent’s own commercial gain and as such Respondent’s
conduct supports findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv). See
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enterpriserentalcars.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: May 28, 2010.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum